Oh no! Where's the JavaScript?
Your Web browser does not have JavaScript enabled or does not support JavaScript. Please enable JavaScript on your Web browser to properly view this Web site, or upgrade to a Web browser that does support JavaScript.
Sign In
Not a member yet? Click here to register.
WOW, I like the theme and I hope you submitt it to the Theme Database when it's ready for v7 themes ;)

You might try to align the top side panels and the top center panel with each other giving some more space at the center panel so it gets a little more down :)
Really nice theme!
I also hope that you submitt it to the Theme Database :P
Umm.. Ahem.

Your footer:


CMS based on PHP-Fusion © 2002-2008 by Nick Jones.
Designed by Joey

Copyright © 2006 - 2008 www.silence-ocean.com
Disclaimer | Impressum | Kontakt
282,656 eindeutige Besuche

Invalid copyright notice for v7.


The copyright footer which must remain in tact unless written permission is provided!

"Powered by PHP-Fusion copyright © 2002 - 2008 by Nick Jones.
Released as free software without warranties under GNU Affero GPL v3."
It's the new V7 liscense. Not just the contest acquirement.


chankarwing wrote:
That's only if you're entering the theme contest. ;)

Um, sorry to break your ego, but how exactly does that make sense? So any theme created for v7 that is not entered in the contest does not have to contain a valid license? Sorry, that just is irrational.
You are not allowed to modify the footer!

Just take a look at the Readme of PHP-Fusion!


"Powered by PHP-Fusion copyright © 2002 - 2008 by Nick Jones.
Released as free software without warranties under GNU Affero GPL v3."

This is our solution to what is stated on the AGPL homepage under Chapter 0:


An interactive user interface displays "Appropriate Legal Notices" to the extent that it includes a convenient and prominently visible feature that (1) displays an appropriate copyright notice, and (2) tells the user that there is no warranty for the work (except to the extent that warranties are provided), that licensees may convey the work under this License, and how to view a copy of this License. If the interface presents a list of user commands or options, such as a menu, a prominent item in the list meets this criterion.

interactive user interface means every page on your website.

It must contain Appropriate Legal Notices, which in turn must contain all of the three following things: name of the copyright holder, that the software is released as free software without warrantied under AGPL v 3 and a link to AGPL License text.

Unless those requirements are made, there is no valid license.

Fell free to do the very same thing as I did, email the FSF, wait for a couple aof months and ask them to elaborate on that.

Michael Fölscher from FSF did explain to me exactly how a footer, ie, copyright notice must look like to be in accordance of AGPL.

A: Name of copyright holder
B Released as free software without warranties under AGPL v 3
C: A link to the License text in its whole

If you cover those three you are free to rephrase it as you like.

The license is sorted out, with further clarification regarding copyright removal, modification etc via correspondence with FSF.

The footer can be modified if you meet the conditions I have stated above and which also are stated per verbatim in the license itself. Read again, please.

Ridiculous? Please do refrain from calling anybody in here that, that is not relevant to the issue at hand.
U can modd anything u like u just have to include the 3 conditions on how to display the licence notification.

And did u know that u need to make every modded sourcecode available to the public off AGPL software/code ;)

Guess no one likes to know that. That's one of the reasons I stopped modding phpfusion or creating themes long ago. Almost no one actually returns the favor...


What if the code is modified?

The license covers that as well. Again, please read the license in full.


The GNU Affero General Public License is designed specifically to ensure that, in such cases, the modified source code becomes available to the community. It requires the operator of a network server to provide the source code of the modified version running there to the users of that server. Therefore, public use of a modified version, on a publicly accessible server, gives the public access to the source code of the modified version.

From the preamble to the license.

We have choosen this license since it does suit our needs a lot better than GPL ever did. As Redemption puts it, you must release any modifications you do to the public.

As for taking people to court, well, that's another ballgame. But we still have every right to choose whom we support or
not. Which we will.

Again ur argument is one of the main reasons I quit supporting open source. U got a valid point.

But for the record...
Maybe 1 out of 100.000 licence violators of any kind of lincence is getting fragged. (prolly even worse odds)

A violater can just pray he's never gonna be that 1 out off... He has the favor of the odds but u never know. And they are actually really tough on licence violators.

[EDIT]: AND as u well know most violators dont stick to just one violation.


The law cannot even catch people from making pirate copies of music and games so nevermind the free softwares that are out there, the judge will be sleeping.

I'm very well aware of the problems with Open Source, copyright violations etc. And we do not intend to bring so many people to court, that is quite a ridiculous idea.

There are other ways to act, which we have done in the past with some success and with this improved license we hopefully will have even more success.

As for your modifications, all of those questions are covered by the license text itself, which is why I have to ask you to read it again.


chankarwing wrote:
Of course if they don't have the copyright, you can always dismiss the support straight away and maybe keep it for reference whilst checking up and then to see if they have removed it. And how about blacklisting them?

That would be quite a hassle, especially the blacklisting part. Also, it's easily bypassed by using a proxy.

Also, when would you unblacklist them? When they put the copyright back? Who's going to keep checking the forum for outdated links that might have a copyright now?

We did talk about not giveing support to site owners who dident specify a link to their site at some point,
Iam not sure if its still in the grinder of possible future solutions or not.
But it feels like our current system works fine, we spot alot of offenders and try to enforce that no copyrigyht = ban all over and no support.
Not giving support for a removed copyright notice makes sense, but all I was saying was that it would be very hard to maintain all of what chankarwing suggested.
Thread Information
Posted In
51 posts
16324 times
Last Post
Last updated on 12 years ago
Related Threads
No other thread found.
Hot Questions
You can view all discussion threads in this forum.
You can start a new discussion thread in this forum.
You cannot reply in this discussion thread.
You cannot start on a poll in this forum.
You can upload attachments in this forum.
You can download attachments in this forum.
Users who participated in discussion: Falk, KEFF, Matonor, Redemption, starefossen, Jock, sk2k, malcster505, Basti, CanadianGuy, googlebot, phpfjs